Judge blocks law against private messages between teachers and kids

A Missouri judge has temporarily blocked a law that would prevent teachers and …

Teachers can still engage in private conversations with their students on Facebook and other social networking services, thanks to a MIssouri judge. The judge issued a ruling today that noted that a law prohibiting such practices could have drastic implications for free speech, so he has put it on hold until February.

The law states that teachers would not be allowed to use non-work-related sites to contact current or former students under the age of 18 via private means, such as messages on Facebook or direct messages on Twitter. Under the legislation, public discussion, like wall posts, would be acceptable.

Teachers’ groups initially supported the provision, but the Missouri State Teachers Association has since challenged it, noting it would violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The organization said that social networks have become a popular medium for student-teacher interaction.

The law was strictly worded enough that it would technically be illegal for a mother or father who was a teacher to direct-message their own child. However, if the law were to go into effect, the “non-work-related” provision means that teachers could still carry out private conversations, so long as it was through a channel approved by the school.

The Missouri General Assembly does not reconvene until January. When it does, Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem said that a hearing would be held to determine whether the private-messaging law should be permanently blocked.

Casey Johnston
Casey Johnston is the former Culture Editor at Ars Technica, and now does the occasional freelance story. She graduated from Columbia University with a degree in Applied Physics. Twitter@caseyjohnston

42 Reader Comments

This law had nothing to do with social networking sites... It used the wording "website" and included both internal (intranet) and internet sites...

It would be illegal for teachers to use almost any form of communication with students if parents did not have full access to the content... This would include web based email systems, document collaboration, online assessment software, etc...

Yes, we must protect our precious snowflakes. We can't have teachers communicating with them...even though they see them up to 8 hours face-to-face everyday...and in situations where they could conceivably be alone to talk with these precious snowflakes. Talk one-to-one personally...face-to-face. No problem there.

But email? Facebook? NO WAY! So to all you pedo teachers out there, just talk to your wards face to face and you can exchange notes and photos all you want without there really being any electronic trace of it. Hey, Missouri lawmakers encourage it!

If they're worried about the teachers hitting on the students or otherwise having an inappropriate relationship with them, why not just implement a policy against that? Rather than make a draconian law that harms legitimate communication in the effort to prevent inappropriate communication, just make a rule against perving on the minors. And probably that stuff is already prohibited anyway, so what's the point in all this?

Just this morning, I drove my 11 year old sister to school at my parents' request (they are out of town). I live half the county away, so I drove the 17 miles to their place, picked up my sister and dropped her off at a school 3 blocks away.

I'm 27, it really wasn't that long ago I was her age, and almost everyone I knew that lived within a mile radius or so of school walked.

I understand that there's no IQ test to get into an elected body. But WTF. Do they not read the Constitution any more?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

That plus the foundational clause which means Federal law supersedes State Laws and well.. WTF. There's no provision in there like "Unless you're employed by the school system" in there.

That law was so poorly written that if a kid had a question for his teacher and set it by email, the teacher would have to wait to see the kid the next day to tell them the answer in person.

And another thing. Remote education? If we keep underfunding schools, eventually all children will be taught via classes on the Internet. How would this shining example of logic stand up to that reality? Give me a break.

I understand that there's no IQ test to get into an elected body. But WTF. Do they not read the Constitution any more?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

That plus the foundational clause which means Federal law supersedes State Laws and well.. WTF. There's no provision in there like "Unless you're employed by the school system" in there.

That law was so poorly written that if a kid had a question for his teacher and set it by email, the teacher would have to wait to see the kid the next day to tell them the answer in person.

Seriously.

What the hell is this country coming to?

Er, I'm reasonably sure that the 1st amendment has balancing precedents where the government has a legitimate interest in curtailing speech. That said, I suspect the state will have a hard time arguing the law was drawn narrowly enough to be exceptional...if it would hold up at all.

I think we need to put in an IQ test for these wacky lawmakers. Also an ethics test, maybe a few other kinds of tests.

Though while your at it apply those tests to all gov employees.

IQ is no measure of wisdom, efficacy, judgment, work ethic, or any of the many other dramatically more important qualities. If you mean an IQ test that only keeps out true idiots, what makes you think any of these people *wouldn't* pass that test? Few if any of our politicians are stupid.

Just this morning, I drove my 11 year old sister to school at my parents' request (they are out of town). I live half the county away, so I drove the 17 miles to their place, picked up my sister and dropped her off at a school 3 blocks away.

I'm 27, it really wasn't that long ago I was her age, and almost everyone I knew that lived within a mile radius or so of school walked.

WTF happened?

I often wonder this too. I'm about your age as well, and when I was in elementary school, I remember walking or riding my bike 7-8 blocks to school every day.

what i remember from high school is that it was not unheard of for teachers and students to become close, perhaps to replace a missing father figure for a divorced kid, or maybe a 24 year-old teacher spends a lot of time with an 18 year old student.

the tragedy seemed less about creeps molesting kids than one of people who genuinely cared about each other getting stuck in a forbidden-love situation that made them gossip fodder and the target of adminstrative ire. It just never seemed like it was about the sex, all i remember is that some of these people really cared about each other and that was what was not allowed.

I think we need to put in an IQ test for these wacky lawmakers. Also an ethics test, maybe a few other kinds of tests.

Though while your at it apply those tests to all gov employees.

IQ is no measure of wisdom, efficacy, judgment, work ethic, or any of the many other dramatically more important qualities. If you mean an IQ test that only keeps out true idiots, what makes you think any of these people *wouldn't* pass that test? Few if any of our politicians are stupid.

Thats why I said and other tests.

1. IQ to block the true idiots2. an impromptu ethics test to catch them off gaurd to see if they would be unethical3. monitor them doing a job that would test efficiency4. give them a test that would test their disision making on options that seem easy but are really tricky but only noticable to a wise person

Just this morning, I drove my 11 year old sister to school at my parents' request (they are out of town). I live half the county away, so I drove the 17 miles to their place, picked up my sister and dropped her off at a school 3 blocks away.

I'm 27, it really wasn't that long ago I was her age, and almost everyone I knew that lived within a mile radius or so of school walked.

WTF happened?

I often wonder this too. I'm about your age as well, and when I was in elementary school, I remember walking or riding my bike 7-8 blocks to school every day.

Hell, I walked to school (about 1 km) with one of my classmates when I was in kindergarten -- so I we were 5.

I think we need to put in an IQ test for these wacky lawmakers. Also an ethics test, maybe a few other kinds of tests.

Though while your at it apply those tests to all gov employees.

IQ is no measure of wisdom, efficacy, judgment, work ethic, or any of the many other dramatically more important qualities. If you mean an IQ test that only keeps out true idiots, what makes you think any of these people *wouldn't* pass that test? Few if any of our politicians are stupid.

Thats why I said and other tests.

1. IQ to block the true idiots2. an impromptu ethics test to catch them off gaurd to see if they would be unethical3. monitor them doing a job that would test efficiency4. give them a test that would test their disision making on options that seem easy but are really tricky but only noticable to a wise person

Just this morning, I drove my 11 year old sister to school at my parents' request (they are out of town). I live half the county away, so I drove the 17 miles to their place, picked up my sister and dropped her off at a school 3 blocks away.

I'm 27, it really wasn't that long ago I was her age, and almost everyone I knew that lived within a mile radius or so of school walked.

WTF happened?

My paranoid mother-in-law insists that she picks up our daughter from her elementary school (she's in 5th grade) and watch her until either of us get off from work ... nevermind the fact that our daughter lives down a public easement from the school (a 5 min walk tops) which cross through a pre-school and a private church and we live in a relatively uneventful neighborhood. I said no to that and got spare keys made and the compromise is to have our daughter call me after she walks home from school.

Honestly, this whole "pampering" issue and viewing every single human being in your neighborhood as a pedo/drug pusher/rapist/serial killer is getting out of hand.

Just this morning, I drove my 11 year old sister to school at my parents' request (they are out of town). I live half the county away, so I drove the 17 miles to their place, picked up my sister and dropped her off at a school 3 blocks away.

I'm 27, it really wasn't that long ago I was her age, and almost everyone I knew that lived within a mile radius or so of school walked.

WTF happened?

My paranoid mother-in-law insists that she picks up our daughter from her elementary school (she's in 5th grade) and watch her until either of us get off from work ... nevermind the fact that our daughter lives down a public easement from the school (a 5 min walk tops) which cross through a pre-school and a private church and we live in a relatively uneventful neighborhood. I said no to that and got spare keys made and the compromise is to have our daughter call me after she walks home from school.

Honestly, this whole "pampering" issue and viewing every single human being in your neighborhood as a pedo/drug pusher/rapist/serial killer is getting out of hand.

My mom was kinda like that. When I was younger, I would just walk home and call her after school to let her know I was home. I would also have to go get my brother at elementary school 10 minutes away. He wasn't allowed to walk by himself.

I spent 1st-4th grade in Ma'adi, a suburb of Cairo (Egypt) - and walked or rode my bike to school all the time from like 2nd grade onwards. I don't recall 1st (lived farther, so I think I was bussed).

Granted, it was usually with a friend or my brother (2 yrs older) - but on weekends, we "went outside to play". My rules / boundaries were I was not allowed to cross the railroad tracks (about 10 blocks between the 2 sets). I usually didn't, but we certainly played around the tracks a lot - putting coins on them and retrieving the smunched ones, etc.

Now, we're 2 blocks from school - and I think our 2nd grader should be able to walk there... but my wife is not convinced... which is odd as she had more freedom when she was a kid. I lived outside Chicago in Kindergarten - and my boundary was our city block when I went out to play; I was just not allowed to cross the street alone (2 blocks from school - but there were crossing guards for school time).

I agree -- our society has become sooooo paranoid. From what I've read, there are not necessarily MORE incidents, but they get splattered nationwide. Truthfully, nothing's happened in our small neighborhood of 7 years, so if it were 25 years ago, EVERYONE would feel totally safe.

I agree -- our society has become sooooo paranoid. From what I've read, there are not necessarily MORE incidents, but they get splattered nationwide. Truthfully, nothing's happened in our small neighborhood of 7 years, ...

I also agree. Many people have become paranoid of teachers, and the Internet, which is stirred up by 24 hour news channels. Many people are on a witchhunt so that all teachers in Missouri at least according to this law were considered guilty of being child abuse perpetrators and they needed to have their free speech rights taken away.

I think we need to put in an IQ test for these wacky lawmakers. Also an ethics test, maybe a few other kinds of tests.

Though while your at it apply those tests to all gov employees.

IQ is no measure of wisdom, efficacy, judgment, work ethic, or any of the many other dramatically more important qualities. If you mean an IQ test that only keeps out true idiots, what makes you think any of these people *wouldn't* pass that test? Few if any of our politicians are stupid.

Thats why I said and other tests.

1. IQ to block the true idiots2. an impromptu ethics test to catch them off gaurd to see if they would be unethical3. monitor them doing a job that would test efficiency4. give them a test that would test their disision making on options that seem easy but are really tricky but only noticable to a wise person

and any other test you can think of

"We call it Voight-Kapmff for short..."

I recall a few years ago a weekly alternative paper interviewed the politicians in their local mayor's race with those questions and rated whether they were human or not. It was especially funny when two (of four) failed.

I am a Journalism teacher at a high school for the last three years. My students are always contacting each other and me via phone, e-mail, and a little facebook to do basic communication: what to do, where to meet, et cetera. It is part of the job. This law has been a big deal in the scholastic journalism world and we are almost all against it. If you were aware of how many principals out there were exercising prior restraint, you would be surprised. This entire social disease is fueled by fear of technology and post 9/11 trauma IMHO. As a country we have moved forward somewhat, but I think the sooner we get out of Iraq and Afghanistan the healthier our society will be. The Arab Spring will also help enfranchise so many that take out their frustrations via bashing the USA. All of these factors will alleviate the fear-driven social repression that has gripped our homeland for the past ten years and this ill-conceived "law" is no exception.

Some posters mention the First Amendment, but Arizona doesn't care as it filed a lawsuit to have the Voting Rights Act overturned. They say it is unconstitutional for Uncle Sam to require the state to ensure the one citizen, one vote rule in a state with a history of discrimination.

Do people still mistake teenagers for kids? article author says, "yes".

As for being paranoid, no. Its called fact of life. With the high rate of kidnapping of school-age children (children ... =< 13), it is a very smart (aka parenting) thing to do, to drive and pick up children to/from school.

And another thing. Remote education? If we keep underfunding schools, eventually all children will be taught via classes on the Internet. How would this shining example of logic stand up to that reality? Give me a break.

Clearly written by someone who doesn't pay property taxes.It's not a matter of funding, it's a matter of waste and greed.The answer to funding schools is Wisconsin.

Just this morning, I drove my 11 year old sister to school at my parents' request (they are out of town). I live half the county away, so I drove the 17 miles to their place, picked up my sister and dropped her off at a school 3 blocks away.

I'm 27, it really wasn't that long ago I was her age, and almost everyone I knew that lived within a mile radius or so of school walked.

WTF happened?

I often wonder this too. I'm about your age as well, and when I was in elementary school, I remember walking or riding my bike 7-8 blocks to school every day.

It is not restricted to the US either. The same applies in large parts of Europe. I think all the fear mongering of the 24-hour news channels is to blame.

Edit: beaten by bb-15. The problem is also that even though I would let my own child walk to school at the same age I did, I don't want him to be the only child walking by himself. Safety in numbers and all that.

I've often been contacted by college professors online to give me information that I was really grateful to receive so promptly. There's no reason why that wouldn't apply to primary education. Web communication allows a teacher to contact students directly in ways that aren't really all that practical if they had to send a note or make a phone call to their house (after all, you can't CC a phone call).

If a student friends me, I then have access to everything they post that's dumped into the newsfeed. A lot of content could be inappropriate or could be something like cyberbullying. Do I want to implicate myself in any of that? No, I don't. We as public school employees (at least here in Colorado) are "mandatory reporters", meaning that if we observe any indications of bullying or abuse of a student, we are compelled by law to take action, whether it be reporting it to a school social worker, supervisor or administrator for investigation or to report directly to a school police officer.

In in-school interactions, there is an unspoken rule: make sure that you're NEVER alone with a student. The reason for that is simple: even in IRL interactions, there is always the potential for misconceptions, miscommunications and misperceptions to occur, and always the possibility of something to be entirely fabricated. 2 years ago, a co-worker was suspended pending an investigation based upon an allegation by an extremely manipulative teenage student. Eventually cleared, it points out how even the slightest allegation must be investigated, and even if those allegations turn out to be total fabrications, the damage has been done.

I've had to learn, especially this past year, that these sorts of things are a reality when working with teens. I've been blindsided by the "teen girl crush", where I've been totally and completely oblivious to its existence since to me, teens are still kids, and a female supervisor had to point it out to me. An eye-opening experience, it made me acutely aware of the potential minefield that I had meandered into and the possible outcomes of not treading carefully.

Now, compound these sorts of things with the ubiquitous interconnection that social sites provide, and for the educational employee, it's a recipe for disaster. One rumor started by one student quickly spreads and the results can get really bad really quickly. The converse is that an employee posting images of them doing what normal adults do can quickly turn into something that a parent would take offense to and could cost a teacher their job. Here's a recent example: http://www.gadailynews.com/news/61845-t ... ebook.html

Now, imagine if any of you not working in public education were fired for posting an image of yourself having a good time on your vacation. That wouldn't happen, would it? But, since we work with the children of other parents, we face much greater scrutiny of our private lives. Would YOU stand for that?

In my opinion, limiting the interactions between staff and students is actually a very good thing as it does in fact protect all parties involved. As a rule, I refuse all friend requests from students, online and in real life. I maintain professional and appropriate detachment and distance, since the potential of not doing so can be very damaging, not just to me but to the student.

I still think it is odd that people point out that a parent may not even be able to communicate with their child because the law is so broad. That is missing the point entirely. Even with such a "fix" that law would be flatly unconstitutional. It makes protected speech illegal with the idea that it will prevent crime. It fails to meet the level of compelling government interest required by the current SCOTUS by a mile.

In my opinion, limiting the interactions between staff and students is actually a very good thing as it does in fact protect all parties involved. As a rule, I refuse all friend requests from students, online and in real life. I maintain professional and appropriate detachment and distance, since the potential of not doing so can be very damaging, not just to me but to the student.

That may be all well and good and I think I understand where you are coming from. But the main problem here is that they have taken your wisdom and tried to make it into a law. There is a world of difference between how people should behave if they have common sense and what needs to be made into a law.

The law does a couple things. 1. It says that if a teacher communicates with a student (under the age of 18) that parents have to also be given access. So by definition, this does not apply to parents who are the teacher.

2. There is a sentence which states that teachers cannot have non-work related communication with former or current students. This is the only part of the law which is really being questioned, as it's already an Ethics Violation to have a personal relationship with an underage student outside of school. Teachers are supposed to report such conflicts if they discover them- for example if a teacher is the friend of the family, so that it can be reviewed to see if it's likely to become a problem or not.

3. The law doesn't make it illegal, it just requires the schools to enact a policy against it.

I agree that what a teacher does outside of work with someone who is not a student of theirs, is none of the school's business. But keep in mind there are plenty of businesses which have "No Fraternization" policies that get upheld in courts, so I don't see how this is really any different.